RAILWORKERS AND REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE

Public Domain: Marxists
Internet Archive (2010). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform
this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit
“Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.

The fifteen months between August, 1928, and November, 1929, are registering
the development of the conditions of revolutionary struggle in the railway
industry.

In August, 1928, the railway owners demanded of the rail-workers
“wage-sacrifices to save the railway industry,” which was declared
to be “in an alarming condition.”

The rail union leaders then urged the workers to accept the wage-cut; the
proposal was carried through. The leaders affected to regard the cut as a
temporary sacrifice to meet a temporary crisis. When the agreement was accepted
the mass of railwaymen awaited with confidence the return to their normal
wage-scales at the end of the twelve months: “the year of the 2½ per
cent."

Their confidence was stimulated last July by the half-yearly. statements of
the four railway groups, which showed increases in profits: the L.M.S. and
Great Western Companies raised their interim dividends above those of June,
1928; the L.M.S. from 1¼ per cent. to 2 per cent.; the Great Western from 1½
per cent. to 2¾ per cent. This position seemed to them to fulfil the conditions
suggested by the Press in August, 1928, that when “better times had come
for the railways no one would grudge the railwaymen the restoration to their
full scale.”

Many railworkers are astonished to-day that despite the increased rates of
dividend, our demand for the termination of the agreement is being opposed by
the owners. The spirit in which our demand is being received is that of the
writer of the “City Notes” in The Times for June 16,
1929:-

Railway stockholders felt that the railwaymen’s recent
notice to terminate the voluntary cut of 2½ per cent. in wages made last August
is in the nature of a telling blow to a staggering subject ... if a voluntary
cut of that amount (2½ per cent.) was necessary a year ago, it cannot, in view
of the experience of the railways this year, be regarded as less necessary
to-day.

An examination of the more significant facts of the railway industry reveals
that the economic position of the companies is not better but worse than in
1928. The national and local leaders who declared in August, 1928, that the cut
was necessary; who applauded the statements of J. H. Thomas that the settlement
was a “lesson to the world ... the best ever made,” have now to
admit that it was unnecessary then or again to agree with the railway owners
that it is necessary now. They cannot change their policy on the ground that
the situation is better to-day because the situation is worse. Next month will
doubtless dispel their doubts and they will be standing where they stood in
August, 1928 - supporting the rail bosses’ demands for wage cuts!

The Revolutionary Policy

Our contention then was and now is: “Oppose the wage-cutting
agreement.”

The case for the cut was, and is, the danger of immediate temporary
difficulty, but the fact that the companies are able to pay annually in profits
over £40,000,000 and, even more important, that they still have over
£70,000,000 in reserves, makes ridiculous the talk of temporary crisis.

The insincerity of the union leaders in using such a plea was completely
revealed by the fact that when the results of the economies effected in
rail-working were employed in July by the companies not to strengthen
railway reserves but to swell shareholders’ dividends, Thomas,
Bromley, Cramp and Walkden uttered no word of protest. They did not
even appeal to the shareholders to “sacrifice” their dividends to
save “our” industry.

There was no “temporary crisis”; the “cut” was a
stage in the persistent campaign against the wages of all workers in this
period of declining capitalism. This was demonstrated by the present
writer in an article in the LABOUR MONTHLY for November, 1928,
“Temporary Crisis or Steady
Decline of the Railways,” argued the case that “the facts of
the railway position are not those of temporary difficulty but the cumulative
facts of steady decline.”

The policy to which the facts pointed was not that of a “temporary
sacrifice” but that laid down by the National Minority Movement in its
Manifesto of August 5, 1928:-

There is not a single economic feature operating to-day that
will not be intensified in twelve months’ time, and we refuse to accept
any reduction in any of our existing standards.... The first essential test of
any industry is its capacity to give a full and decent livelihood to those it
employs.

If this is not possible under capitalist control then
capitalist control must go, and our resistance to the companies’ demands
is the first big step towards smashing that control.

The facts of the position to-day are not that an easy arrangement can be
made between railway owners and railway workers. To take back the wage-cut; to
terminate the agreement and to move against the stagnation and other
consequences of railway rationalisation would mean an immediate inroad either
on reserves or on profits: such an inroad would end the slight prospect of
securing the new capital adequate for railway rationalisation: it would be
fatal to the hopes of the railway capitalists.

To go further and struggle for the National Minority Movement
railwaymen’s programme would be a struggle that could only be won by
ending capitalist control. The ever-increasing body of railworkers which
supports that programme is quickly realising that the alternatives are complete
surrender or revolutionary struggle.

Meanwhile the significant facts of railway economy are those of steady
decline.

The Basic Difficulty

It may be argued that the position of railway shares on the market offers a
basis for optimism about railways; the last month or two are said to have
“marked a revival.” It would be a mistake wholly to judge the
position from such evidence, but for what the evidence is worth it is of
interest that despite the use of the new powers for railways under the Road
Powers Act, despite the 2½ per cent, wage-cut, despite extensive economies,
despite the aid to raising new capital by cancellation of the passenger duty,
despite the increases in interim dividends, despite the indirect benefits of
“de-rating,” despite the rumoured “intentions” of the
Government, despite the persistent Press propaganda for the purchase of railway
stocks, their position on the market is worse rather than better than a year
ago.

The many artificial aids brought in to stimulate the railway industry have
not been able to affect the basic evil. Because the future of British railways
depends upon the basic British industries, British railways continue to
decline. The following figures, given in the Minority Movement’s
“Another Year of Rationalisation” from the Board of Trade Journal,
record the basic difficulty affecting British railways:-

INDEX OF PRODUCTION, 1924. - 100.

Group

Year

Year

1927

1928

Mines and Quarries

94.3

89.2

Iron and Steel Manufactures

110.0

102.3

Non-ferrous Metals

116.9

119.3

Engineering and Shipbuilding

115.2

113.3

Textiles

101.6

99.9

These figures, in conjunction with the fact that to compare with 1913
production they must be reduced by roughly 10 per cent. show that, far
from British heavy industry being able to improve its position in relation to
the other world capitalisms, it still has to attain to its pre-war production.
The future of British railways rests with that of heavy industry.

Of the state of trade in relation to railways Sir J. Stamp said at the
L.M.S. Annual Meeting in March, 1929: “The course of trade in 1928 was,
in fact, even worse than appeared probable a year ago, and particularly from
March to August the freight traffic receipts were extremely bad, Since August
there has been, not an increase, but a progressive decline in the rate of
decrease.

Because the main job of the railworker in an industrial country is to
transport goods traffic it is clear that “only really active conditions
of trade can restore prosperity to the railways”; the external conditions
deny the possibility of prosperity to British railways.

Railway Figures

A striking indication of the unhealthy condition of British railways is
revealed by many demands from the writers of the financial columns in the Press
that a new type of information shall be given regarding home railways.

These writers complain that only “gross traffics” are published,
and in consequence “unfortunate holders are frightened out of their
holdings owing to the ‘half-truths’ contained in the published
information.”

They now desire this change because the figures which for many years have
given the key to railway profits now fail to carry out that function, and it is
imperative that the new factor, the increasing economies effected at the
workers’ expense, be brought into the picture. That economies become of
such importance to investors marks the decadent economic position created by
the decline of capitalism. Railwaymen will be interested to note that in
addition to the economies of the 2½ per cent. cut and the many forms of
“stagnation” which they are now experiencing an enormous reduction
in staff is also being effected, as the following table shows:-

Railworkers Employed

1921

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

736,000

702,000

689,000

683,000

677,000

642,000

This part of the truth of the trend of things under Mondist Rationalisation
is of even more interest to the railworker than the “unfortunate
holders.”

A comparison of the railway receipts for January-August, 1928, with those of
1929 gives a slightly more re-assuring picture for those who wish to be
deluded:-

Passengers

Goods

January to August

January to August

1929

1928

1929

1928

G.W.

8,812,000

9,054,000

12,143,000

11,539,000

L.M.S.

19,826,000

26,678,000

29,119,000

23,790,000

L.N.E.

13,525,000

14,003,000

22,595,000

21,437,000

Southern

11,637,000

11,889,000

3,817,000

3,743,000

Total

53,800,000

55,624,000

67,674,000

65,509,000

The decrease in passenger receipts is disappointing after the “cheap
fare” campaign combined with expensive work of avoiding road-competition
by acquiring controlling interests in the companies. The best to be said is
“cheap fares have resulted in a smaller decline than if the old
arrangements had been continued.” The increase in the goods traffic is
vastly more important than the decrease in the passenger, but its significance
is largely minimised by the fact that it is mainly caused by coal traffic
consequent upon the abnormally severe winter and the necessity to replenish
stocks “particularly,” said Sir R. Wedgwood, “in the export
trade”; “de-rating” also helps to make the comparison
unreal.

The figures to which we must go for the final test are the figures of
tonnage; the two subjoined tables inescapably demonstrate the steady decline of
the railways:-

Year

1928 on 1927

Jan. Feb.
March

1928 on 1927

1927

1928

1928

1929

Variations

Variations

(in 1,000 tons)

(in 1,000 tons)

Goods

General Merchandise

60,254

57,226

5 p.c.

15,123

14,345

-5.1 p.c.

Coke, Coal Fuel

195,772

187,334

-4.3 p.c

49,808

53,910

+8.24 p.c

Other Minerals

65,828

61,569

-6.5 p.c

15,168

14,341

-5.4 p.c

321,854

306,129

80,099

83,596

General
Merchandise

Coal, Coke,
Fuel

Other
Minerals

Tons

Tons

Tons

1913

67,755,470

225,601,127

71,067,357

1921

50,529,878

128,298,861

39,066,544

1922

52,844,466

200,102,316

48,678,846

1923

58,979,989

222,234,412

62,002,237

1924

60,947,377

209,160,559

65,392,967

1925

59,739,284

193,661,991

62,549,965

1926

53,439,125

114,098,398

48,059,504

1927

60,567,490

199,306,792

65,586,367

These figures are the key to the developing crisis; railwaymen and railway
owners are learning the mining lesson that wage cuts cannot create markets; the
railworker faces the developing struggle.

The Task of the Labour Leadership

In this situation the owning class turns frantically to every method of
saving itself. Rationalisation is its panacea; and the Labour Government its
“saviour” which is to apply the rationalisation remedy.

Here and there among the workers faith in the leaders and their ability
lingers on; some hope that partly by vulgar “bonhomie,” partly by
State bribes in aid of railway development, Thomas will do the trick of winning
concessions for the railworkers; some look to Walkden and Cramp, despite the
Cotton Arbitration Award.

But the realisation steadily grows that all new capital development whether
for labour-saving, for road development, or even for an ambitious large-scale
electrification scheme could not be capitalised unless the burden of the new
capital can be paid for out of the workers: and the understanding spreads that
the task of the Labour Government is to reorganise capitalist industry for
capitalism and that the trade union leaders are to act as the agents of Mondism
in carrying through the task. The mantle of Havelock Wilson has fallen upon new
shoulders together with a double portion of his spirit.

Cramp’s warning to rail workers not to look to the Labour Government
to do what they would not have expected done by a Tory Government was hardly
necessary: as Palme Dutt wrote in the Communist Review for September,
“the Labour Government is able to build not so much upon the
workers’ enthusiasm as upon their uncertainty of the
alternative.”

That is as true of the trade union leadership as of the Labour Government.
The scandalous award by Cramp and Walkden in the cotton dispute has
disillusioned vast numbers of rail-workers as to the real character of their
leadership. They realise that such leaders “cannot be made to
fight.”

The trade union figures are indicating the swing to the Left out of the
unions. Politically-backward workers are finding their way back into the
Railway Clerks’ Association after the exodus in May, 1926 (4,000 increase
last year), but the N.U.R - despite vigorous official recruiting efforts -
reports a decrease of over 3,000. Carriage cleaners and platelayers are
especially contemp¬tuous towards the organisation.

The figures of the whole trade union movement show a con¬tempt for the
unions which makes impossible the organisational task of changing the
leadership; but the struggle yields results which makes the battle well worth
the effort.

But for this fight which is ahead - a fight with the new political
significance which now marks all industrial struggles - new methods must be
employed. The situation demands not only militant industrial action but a new
type of industrial organisation under the leadership of a revolutionary
political party

It is also essential that a new type of industrial organisation shall win
the confidence of the workers. An important lesson of the strikes at
Austin’s, at Braintree and at Leatherhead is that in crisis even the
workers who have left the unions, disillusioned with their leadership, will, in
the struggle, hand over the leader¬ship of their struggles to the old corrupt
bodies if the new leadership is not forthcoming.

As the Labour Government builds not upon the enthusiasm of the workers but
upon their failure to secure an alternative to support, so too with the trade
union leadership.

As soon as possible in every shop, on every depot and siding it is the task
of every rail and transport worker to strive to create rank and file shop,
siding and depot committees that the workers will not turn to the corrupt trade
union leadership, but meet the crisis with a leadership which will lead the
struggle for the rail workers’ demands and develop the power to carry out
the struggle for a revolutionary workers’ government.

Labour’s “Path to Power”

Many of the railworkers who admit that their leaders have now clearly
abandoned the idea of leading industrial struggle; who go even further and
agree that those leaders accept it as their role to carry through the
reorganisation of the railways under capitalist control despite the wage-cuts
that process will entail, bring forward their one remaining defence of the
Labour and trade union leadership - they plead that the leaders are helping the
capitalist to reorganise the industry, but that, when that process is
completed, by means of Labour State action the results will be appropriated for
the workers. They believe that, while the rationalisation process goes on, the
workers’ representatives are steadily achieving control of capitalist
industry. Three simple but significant points thoroughly expose the falsity of
this delusion.

The first point, is the answer of Mr. Walkden, General Secretary of the
Railway Clerks’ Association, member of the General Council of the Trades
Union Congress, before the Royal Commission on Transport, held last January;
his answer clearly shows the opinion of the rail union leaders and the General
Council as to whether trade union leaders “controlling industry”
would act as “workers’ representatives.” Walkden had argued
that the railway unions should nominate three representatives on to a Board
which should control Transport, and when asked, “Would they be there as
representatives of the trade unions?” replied: “No. They would be
nominated by the trade unions, but after appointment they would be detached
from the union. They would be responsible Railway Commissioners with a
knowledge of practical railway operations and the life of the railway
workers.” To a further question as to the line to be taken by these trade
union leaders when appointed as Commissioners, i.e., “Would they give up
their tickets as trade unionists?” Walkden replied: “Certainly.
Under the scheme I have suggested to you, a man could not remain a trade
unionist and be a Railway Commissioner at one and the same time. He would
certainly have to make his choice, just as Mr. Frank Hodges has no longer
anything to do with trade union work: he is now an Electricity
Commissioner.”

Labour’s “Path to Power”

Many of the railworkers who admit that their leaders have now clearly
abandoned the idea of leading industrial struggle; who go even further and
agree that those leaders accept it as their role to carry through the
reorganisation of the railways under capitalist control despite the wage-cuts
that process will entail, bring forward their one remaining defence of the
Labour and trade union leadership - they plead that the leaders are helping the
capitalist to reorganise the industry, but that, when that process is
completed, by means of Labour State action the results will be appropriated for
the workers. They believe that, while the rationalisation process goes on, the
workers’ representatives are steadily achieving control of capitalist
industry. Three simple but significant points thoroughly expose the falsity of
this delusion.

The first point, is the answer of Mr. Walkden, General Secretary of the
Railway Clerks’ Association, member of the General Council of the Trades
Union Congress, before the Royal Commission on Transport, held last January;
his answer clearly shows the opinion of the rail union leaders and the General
Council as to whether trade union leaders “controlling industry”
would act as “workers’ representatives.” Walkden had argued
that the railway unions should nominate three representatives on to a Board
which should control Transport, and when asked, “Would they be there as
representatives of the trade unions?” replied: “No. They would be
nominated by the trade unions, but after appointment they would be detached
from the union. They would be responsible Railway Commissioners with a
knowledge of practical railway operations and the life of the railway
workers.” To a further question as to the line to be taken by these trade
union leaders when appointed as Commissioners, i.e., “Would they give up
their tickets as trade unionists?” Walkden replied: “Certainly.
Under the scheme I have suggested to you, a man could not remain a trade
unionist and be a Railway Commissioner at one and the same time. He would
certainly have to make his choice, just as Mr. Frank Hodges has no longer
anything to do with trade union work: he is now an Electricity
Commissioner.”

Labour’s “Path to Power”

Many of the railworkers who admit that their leaders have now clearly
abandoned the idea of leading industrial struggle; who go even further and
agree that those leaders accept it as their role to carry through the
reorganisation of the railways under capitalist control despite the wage-cuts
that process will entail, bring forward their one remaining defence of the
Labour and trade union leadership - they plead that the leaders are helping the
capitalist to reorganise the industry, but that, when that process is
completed, by means of Labour State action the results will be appropriated for
the workers. They believe that, while the rationalisation process goes on, the
workers’ representatives are steadily achieving control of capitalist
industry. Three simple but significant points thoroughly expose the falsity of
this delusion.

The first point, is the answer of Mr. Walkden, General Secretary of the
Railway Clerks’ Association, member of the General Council of the Trades
Union Congress, before the Royal Commission on Transport, held last January;
his answer clearly shows the opinion of the rail union leaders and the General
Council as to whether trade union leaders “controlling industry”
would act as “workers’ representatives.” Walkden had argued
that the railway unions should nominate three representatives on to a Board
which should control Transport, and when asked, “Would they be there as
representatives of the trade unions?” replied: “No. They would be
nominated by the trade unions, but after appointment they wouldbe
detached from the union. They would be responsible Railway Commissioners
with a knowledge of practical railway operations and the life of the railway
workers.” To a further question as to the line to be taken by these trade
union leaders when appointed as Commissioners, i.e., “Would they give up
their tickets as trade unionists?” Walkden replied: “Certainly.
Under the scheme I have suggested to you, a man could not remain a trade
unionist and be a Railway Commissioner at one and the same time. He would
certainly have to make his choice, just as Mr. Frank Hodges has no longer
anything to do with trade union work: he is now an Electricity
Commissioner.”

Here is shown clearly the conception that the “workers’
representative would “sit” not as a representative of the working
class to enforce workers’ control but to act as an expert adviser on the
raw material of the railway industry – railwaymen’s labour
power.

The second point is the part of the joint work of the Labour Government and
the General Council of the Trades Union Congress displayed in the cotton
dispute. In a situation in which the textile workers were united and steadfast
in struggle the combination of Labour Government and General Council did their
utmost to induce the workers to accept arbitration from an
“impartial” tribunal. In such a struggle, against an attack on
wages - and such wages! – no class-conscious worker could have argued for
“impartiality.” A workers’ objective would be to use the
workers’ readiness for struggle to effect a conquest of the industry. The
workers’ leaders, however, worked instead for impartial arbitration.
Whenever these “impartial” arbitrators appeared the body had a
character openly and predominantly “pro-capitalist;” the man Swift,
who acted as Chairman, is notoriously hostile to the working class. The result
of this “impartiality” arranged by the Labour and trade union
leaders to stop the workers’ resolute struggle was openly and insolently
announced in a Times leading article as “a Swift
decision.” Here we see the role of the Labour Government and trade union
leaders: not as striving for “workers’ control,” but serving
the cotton capitalists and the bankers.

The third point is the most striking of all. Taking up its task of
Capitalist Reconstruction the Labour Government has appointed a Committee to
“consider the advisability of obtaining a report upon the problem of the
electrification of the main line railway systems of Great Britain.” This
Committee is greeted by the Press as an inquiry which affords “prospects
of far-reaching developments.”

Remembering the importance to the mine workers and the mine owners during
their struggles of the approach to the conflicts determined by the reports of
the many Committees and Com¬missions, all concerned with the developing railway
crisis turn anxiously to see what approach to the coming crisis will be created
by the new Electrification of Railways Committee, by examining its personnel.
We find that for this tremendously important task the Labour Government has
appointed:-

Lord Weir of Eastwood, one of the ablest of the capitalist class; Sir Ralph
Wedgwood, of the L.N.E. Railway; Sir William McLintock, competent servant of
the Bureaucratic State; Colonel Trench, of the Ministry of Transport, will act
as Secretary.

The Labour Government no longer attempts to hoodwink the workers by
putting even a sham representative of the workers’ interests on to this
important body.

The Committee is important because when it is reported that the
electrification of the railways is essential the question of new railway
capital will come right to the fore. Then it will be made clear that new
capital cannot be forthcoming until railway shareholders obtain the
standard dividends permitted under the Railways Act of 1921. To obtain
that extra £10,000,000 profit will become the objective of the coming struggles
and in that struggle the Labour Government, the General Council, and the
Railway leaders will play the role they played in the cotton dispute, the role
not of winning “workers’ control” of the industry, not even
of helping the struggle to better rail workers’ conditions, but of
accepting the experts’ conclusions, of aiding the capitalist
reorganisation of the industry by achieving the cuts in wages so essential to
capitalism now fighting against its own decline.

These three points not only lay bare the futility of the plea that by
Parliamentary and administrative means “workers’ control of the
railway industry” will be won; but they also indicate that rail workers
must not only face the industrial struggle, they have also to face the
realities of political struggle: the struggle not only against the capitalist
employers, but the struggle also against the capitalist State - whether it be
served by Baldwin or by MacDonald.

Rail workers have not only the special task of creating a militant
industrial leadership and organisation, but also they must play their part in
building up a revolutionary political organisation preparing for the essential
political struggle - the insurrectionary struggle for the conquest by the
working class of State power.